Arturus Rex: The Once and Future King

If Shakespeare is Britain's most enduring voice, surely this man is the heart of its most enduring story: Arthur, the legendary King of the Britons. Arthur and his knights have inspired the pens of such literary giants as Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, C. S. Lewis, and Marion Zimmer Bradley... but they've also found their way into the adventures of Indiana Jones, Monty Python, and Sonic the Hedgehog. (I find it intriguing that Shakespeare, who regularly borrowed from England's history and other stories far and wide, never once touched upon what became known as "the matter of Britain"-- the Arthurian mythos. Perhaps he was leery of poaching in Edmund Spenser's territory.)

The earliest written reference to Arthur appeared around 828 A.D. As I write this, there are four brand-new Arthurian-inspired titles on our library's shelves (two adult fantasies, a YA novel, and a history). This means Arthur's legend has been alive and kicking for nearly twelve centuries-- pretty good for someone we're not even sure was real.

Though his name is associated with nearly as many British places as George Washington's is with American sleeping quarters, debate still rages hotly over the "historical Arthur"-- whether or not the man existed as a king (unlikely) or warlord (possibly) or soldier (most likely) sometime around the end of Rome's occupation of Britain. Even J. N. L. Myres, one of the foremost authorities on Roman and Anglo-Saxon Britain, felt compelled to weigh in on the Arthur issue, mostly to complain that there was an "Arthur issue" at all: "No figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time." Myres admits there's just enough evidence to suggest a man by the name of "Artorius" existed, "but if we add anything to the bare statement that Arthur may have lived and fought the Saxons, we pass at once from history to romance."

The question may be an intriguing one, but Myres has a point. Short of a major archaeological find, there's just not enough reliable information in the historical record to prove or disprove Arthur's existence. And Myres' gripe is legitimate, too, because Arthur doesn't rightfully belong to history at all (sorry, historical fiction buffs!)-- he belongs to legend. The real Arthur would likely never have received more than a footnote in the history books. But the myth that is Arthur, and all that he represents-- a kingly ideal, a pattern of chivalry and honor, a tragic story of love, friendship, and betrayal-- the myth is what has kept his story in our hearts for more than a millenium.

Arthur is known as the "once and future king" because of a legend that claims he did not truly die after his final battle. Instead, he was hidden away and cast into an enchanted sleep against future need. The story goes that in Britain's darkest hour, he who once was king will awaken and return to lead his people once more.

Arthur may be sleeping, but his legend is not. It has continued to grow and inspire us throughout the centuries. And if the titles below are any indication, the Once and Future King will still be alive and speaking to readers for another twelve centuries to come.